NHM and the trail

[John Larsen]

Nothing could be. There are always alternative explanations.

True that. What I find is interesting, as I have looked at other religions, philosophies, investment schemes, and paranormal events, there always seems to be at least one really good--even unexplainable--piece of evidence. There is always that one thing that makes even the most jaded skeptic shrug their shoulders and say, "I dunno." But the problem is that these great pieces of evidence, themselves don't line up. They support conclusions that are by their nature contradictory and can't all be true. So what is one to do? Look for preponderance of evidence. Look for the most likely solution. Look for the solution that in itself doesn't contradict a great many other likely solutions. Look at the other evidence. You get the picture. We simply can't explain every bullseye for every person out their with metaphysical claims.

[Analytics]

With regards to â??south-southeastâ? as a modernism, I will agree with you that it is. However, I simply see it as a byproduct of translation and may or may not reflect the exact wording on the plates.

What word in ancient Hebrew/reformed Egyptian could possibly refer to the general concept of â??nearly south-southeastâ??

The only thing I can imagine is that perhaps his directional system used the sea as a reference point, so that his directions were â??towards the seaâ?, â??away from the seaâ?, â??sea on the leftâ?, and â??sea on the right.â? So, if he wrote â??we traveled with the sea on our rightâ?, that could be translated as we traveled â??nearly south-southeastâ?, assuming that what he actually said was translated into modern directions.

But that only works when analyzing that verse in isolation because it contradicts the LGM Mesoamerican model which says that Nephite North isnâ??t our North.

[Jaybear]

We simply can't explain every bullseye for every person out their with metaphysical claims.

Please don't feed the apologists. Nhm, while described by apologists as one, is not a bullseye.

You don't have a bullseye unless and until there is a scholarly consensus by Mideast historians that, circa 600 BC, there was in fact a place called Nahom on the Arabian peninsula. I have yet to see one single NonLDS scholar make such a claim.

From what I gather, the inscription on the alter refers to a member of the Nihm tribe. From there it assumed that that the Nhm tribe may have had a place named after the Nihm tribe, and then its is further presumed that this theoretical location is the location called Nahom in the book of mormon. Then the obligatory question is thrown out, how could an illiterate farm boy have known.

Now, if the book had mentioned that the Nephites had interactions with Nihmites, then one would have to wonder, how could Smith had known about the Nihm tribe.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Yep. It is just us dishonest Mormons trying to lie again.

Give it a break Jaybear.

http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewk...5f3324ca3f94543

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

Yep. It is just us dishonest Mormons trying to lie again.

Give it a break Jaybear.

http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewk...5f3324ca3f94543

Thank you, but I prefer to choose my own words. If pressed, there term that I would use would be "overstate."

Personally, I think its premature to ask for a secular explanation as to how JS could had known about "Nehom," when you have yet to establish to the satisfaction of any secular scholars that a place called Nehom existed circa 600 B.C.?

You are welcome to disagree, but a pithy "give it break" is far from a reasonable rebuttal.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Forgive me if I am wrong. But it seems from your own words that it is only us lying Mormons that give NHM any significance. That is unfair and unreasonable. The NHM alter in the Saudi desert was found by a non LDS. It is there for all the world to see. Follow the Frankincense Trail. You find it. It was dated to before the 7th Century BCE by non LDS. It coincides well with the story as told by Nephi.

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=1...um=2&id=255

[maklelan]

Please don't feed the apologists. Nhm, while described by apologists as one, is not a bullseye.

You don't have a bullseye unless and until there is a scholarly consensus by Mideast historians that, circa 600 BC, there was in fact a place called Nahom on the Arabian peninsula.

No, a bullseye is a claim that lines up perfectly with the putative origins of the claim. The OED defines it as "A shot that hits the mark." In every possible way NHM lines up with Nahom. The vowels are utterly irrelevant, since we can't ever know how they were pronounced when the altar was inscribed. The hard h/soft h discussion is also irrelevant, since both are transliterated with "h" in 19th century English. What you're rejecting is the idea that this evidence is generally accepted in the academic community as supporting the historicity of the Book of Mormon, which is not what the claim is.

I have yet to see one single NonLDS scholar make such a claim.

Can you point to one non-LDS scholar (and non-antagonistic scholar) that addresses the issue at all?

From what I gather, the inscription on the alter refers to a member of the Nihm tribe.

You gather incorrectly. It refers to an individual with a gentilic reference, which could be tribal or national. The reason it is most likely national is the fact that a nearby locale was known by the toponym Nehem up to the 19th century.

From there it assumed that that the Nhm tribe may have had a place named after the Nihm tribe, and then its is further presumed that this theoretical location is the location called Nahom in the book of mormon.

Actually the maps from the 18th century on that designate the location as Nehem/Nehm and the local traditions that claim the name goes all the way back (combined with the enormous burial site associated with it and its location right at the bend in the Frankincense Trail) make those conclusion logical, and not just assumptions.

Then the obligatory question is thrown out, how could an illiterate farm boy have known.

Now, if the book had mentioned that the Nephites had interactions with Nihmites, then one would have to wonder, how could Smith had known about the Nihm tribe.

No, it would still be a coincidence if that happened. That's why Olishem fits, why Irreantum fits, and why all the names recently discovered in extra-biblical inscriptions and bullae fit. It's all coincidence.

[volgadon]

Chet, the middle letter in NHM, is pronounced almost like an h by all Eastern Jews, especially the Yemenites.....

[maklelan]

Thank you, but I prefer to choose my own words. If pressed, there term that I would use would be "overstate."

Personally, I think its premature to ask for a secular explanation as to how JS could had known about "Nehom," when you have yet to establish to the satisfaction of any secular scholars that a place called Nehom existed circa 600 B.C.?

But this is an appeal to authority. You won't investigate or consider the merits of any evidence unless people whom you recognize to be authorities have supported it. You will instead assert that their reticence indicates the weakness of the evidence. Pure and simple appeal to authority.

You are welcome to disagree, but a pithy "give it break" is far from a reasonable rebuttal.

Your claim is a blatant logical fallacy. That people respond at all gives it more credit than is due.

[Jaybear]

But this is an appeal to authority. You won't investigate or consider the merits of any evidence unless people whom you recognize to be authorities have supported it. You will instead assert that their reticence indicates the weakness of the evidence. Pure and simple appeal to authority.

Well then, lets make an appeal to Maklelan.

Maklelan, puting aside the BOM, do you believe that the archeological evidence cited by the mormon apologists establishes that, circa 600BC, there was in fact a location called "Nehom" on the Arabian Peninsula?

Yes or no? If the answer is yes, then you have your bullseye.

If the answer is no, or you equivocate, and change the question, then the arrow is still in the air, yet to reach the target, and its premature to characterize the finding as a bullseye.

Of course, we may simply have a disagreement over what the term "bullseye" means.

Your claim is a blatant logical fallacy. That people respond at all gives it more credit than is due.

You are right. Its unreasonable for me to ask whether an archeological claim, which would be of interest to Mideastern historians, has been presented to and accepted by Mideastern historians. I am terribly embarrassed for not accepting the claims of apologists on matters outside my expertise at face value.

[maklelan]

Well then, lets make an appeal to Maklelan.

You mean "Let's deflect the point now that my assumptions have been undermined"?

Maklelan, puting aside the BOM, do you believe that the archeological evidence cited by the mormon apologists establishes that, circa 600BC, there was in fact a location called "Nehom" on the Arabian Peninsula?

It establishes that during that time period there was a place called NHM on the Arabian Peninsula. Asserting any vocalization is pure speculation. The evidence clearly favors a toponymic origin rather than tribal.

Yes or no? If the answer is yes, then you have your bullseye.

If the answer is no, or you equivocate, and change the question, then the arrow is still in the air, yet to reach the target, and its premature to characterize the finding as a bullseye.

Of course, we may simply have a disagreement over what the term "bullseye" means.

You are right. Its unreasonable for me to ask whether an archeological claim, which would be of interest to Mideastern historians, has been presented to and accepted by Mideastern historians. I am terribly embarrassed for not accepting the claims of apologists on matters outside my expertise at face value.

Zing!

[Jaybear]

You mean "Let's deflect the point now that my assumptions have been undermined"?

No. Not at all. It means that the point I was making was the same, regardless of whether the facts are examined by a secular expert, Jaybear, or an honest LDS apologist.

The point, to be clear, is that there are several assumption, one of which you note requires pure speculation, that must be made, before anyone can say that there was a placed called Nahom in the Arabian Peninsula.

It establishes that during that time period there was a place called NHM on the Arabian Peninsula.

You mean: "No, but it does establish that during that time period there was a place called NHM on the Arabian Peninsula."

Not surprising, I didn't think you could spit out the word "no."

BTW, do you know if there are any secular scholars who concur your conclusion?

Asserting any vocalization is pure speculation.

And yet, there is a translation of the text on the alter by secular scholars that does just that.

"Bi'athar, son of Saw

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Putting aside the BoM. There was a place in what is now Yemen called by an English translation NaHoM, in about 600 BCE. This place was explored by a non LDS researcher Burkhard Vogt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahom

The place actually exists. You can go there yourself and see the ruins.

As far as any LDS tie in. That is what is speculative, but it does seem reasonable to assume given the narrative in the BoM to be the Nahom talked about by Nephi. Now it MAY not be in fact the one Nephi is talking about but that is what the best evidence presented so far suggests.

[maklelan]

No. Not at all. It means that the point I was making was the same, regardless of whether the facts are examined by a secular expert, Jaybear, or an honest LDS apologist.

The point, to be clear, is that there are several assumption, one of which you note requires pure speculation, that must be made, before anyone can say that there was a placed called Nahom in the Arabian Peninsula.

It does not require speculation to conclude that there is evidence that NHM = Nahom. I already went over what the "bullseye" claim is. You're trying to insist we're saying something we're not, and it's getting old.

You mean: "No, but it does establish that during that time period there was a place called NHM on the Arabian Peninsula."

I thought that the "No" was tacit in my response, since I explained that the evidence supports something other than what you said. If "no" makes you feel better, though, then feel free to add it.

Not surprising, I didn't think you could spit out the word "no."

Perhaps you should start engaging the evidence instead of just trying to prove we're dogmatic idiots and you're smart.

BTW, do you know if there are any secular scholars who concur your conclusion?

I don't know of any who have looked at the question.

And yet, there is a translation of the text on the alter by secular scholars that does just that.

Would you like me to explain to you why this doesn't matter, or are you just going to bark uneducated objections if I do?

That's the sound of the arrow leaving the bow. I haven't heard the "thunk" yet.

Frightfully clever.

[Olavarria]

It does not require speculation to conclude that there is evidence that NHM = Nahom. I already went over what the "bullseye" claim is. You're trying to insist we're saying something we're not, and it's getting old.

I thought that the "No" was tacit in my response, since I explained that the evidence supports something other than what you said. If "no" makes you feel better, though, then feel free to add it.

Perhaps you should start engaging the evidence instead of just trying to prove we're dogmatic idiots and you're smart.

I don't know of any who have looked at the question.

Would you like me to explain to you why this doesn't matter, or are you just going to bark uneducated objections if I do?

Frightfully clever.

Heres an explanation of where the name comes from

It comes from the South Arabian word nahama "to cut stone" and may have reference to the kind of work the tribe did. During the time of Lehi, the tribe was living at the same general area its living today, as evidenced by the votive altars donated by Biathar the Nhm-ite. So if its the land of NHM today then it was the land of NHM back then, for its the NHM tribe's territory.

[Gervin]

Jaybear:

Putting aside the BoM. There was a place in what is now Yemen called by an English translation NaHoM, in about 600 BCE. This place was explored by a non LDS researcher Burkhard Vogt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahom

The place actually exists. You can go there yourself and see the ruins.

As far as any LDS tie in. That is what is speculative, but it does seem reasonable to assume given the narrative in the BoM to be the Nahom talked about by Nephi. Now it MAY not be in fact the one Nephi is talking about but that is what the best evidence presented so far suggests.

The ruins are in Marib which is no where near the dot indicating Nahom on the wiki map you link. What, if anything, is at the map location noted as Nahom? It isn't clear to me based on the article.

[Olavarria]

The ruins are in Marib which is no where near the dot indicating Nahom on the wiki map you link. What, if anything, is at the map location noted as Nahom? It isn't clear to me based on the article.

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=1...um=2&id=255

Marib is a stones throw from NHM.

The fact that a NHM-ite donated an altar for a temple in Marib, in 600bc, proves that the tribe was living near and around Marib at that time, just as it does today.

[Jaybear]

It does not require speculation to conclude that there is evidence that NHM = Nahom.

I agree, the reference to a Nihmite on the alter is evidence to support an argument that there was a lcoation called Nahom in 600BC.

Mak: I already went over what the "bullseye" claim is. You're trying to insist we're saying something we're not, and it's getting old.

Classic example of why it nearly impossible to engage in a reasoned discussion with an apologist.

You claim that I am insisting "we're saying something we're not."

That is a completely false statement. I did nothing of the sort. Yet, somehow something I didn't say that you said is getting old to you.

The only point I am raising is that it is premature to ask "How could JS had known."

Heck, the subtitle of this thread is that very question: "Looking for secular explanations aka How did Joseph know?"

Perhaps you should start engaging the evidence instead of just trying to prove we're dogmatic idiots and you're smart.

Again, we have an disconnect. As you have already conceded the factual premise underlying my point, what exactly would you have me do with the evidence?

Would you like me to explain to you why this doesn't matter, or are you just going to bark uneducated objections if I do?

Yes, I would. As I am a lawyer, and not a linguistic scholar, I would look forward to an "educated" explanation as to how secular scholars came up with an interpretation of the tablet, which included English vowels.

Will you be providing the "educated" explanation?

[maklelan]

I agree, the reference to a Nihmite on the alter is evidence to support an argument that there was a lcoation called Nahom in 600BC.

Since the altar dates to before that time period and the vocalization is arbitrary, yes. You keep trying to reduce it down to where it sounds silly to you, but you just don't know the facts well enough.

Classic example of why it nearly impossible to engage in a reasoned discussion with an apologist.

You claim that I am insisting "we're saying something we're not."

That is a completely false statement. I did nothing of the sort.

You absolutely did. You tried to twist the claim of a "bullseye" into a claim of proof.

Yet, somehow something I didn't say that you said is getting old to you.

The only point I am raising is that it is premature to ask "How could JS had known."

And I explained why that's fallacious. You didn't respond, you just went on an "appeal to maklelan" tangent.

Heck, the subtitle of this thread is that very question: "Looking for secular explanations aka How did Joseph know?"

There is nothing inappropriate about the title. The name is as close as it can be and the location and function are as well. In the academic world that merits an explanation. Either it was a coincidence, Smith had information of which we're unaware, or the places happen to be the same. The OP wants the critics to provide an explanation for #2, since just asserting a coincidence is hardly verifiable, and this is a pretty hefty coincidence. You, on the other hand, are under the impression that proof is required before someone can ask for an explanation why they should reject a certain conclusion, which is ludicrous. Since you don't seem to be able to do anything but fight tooth and nail to feel like you're winning arguments, you've been reduced to these asinine little meta-arguments. Yeah, it's getting old, and I'm getting tired of responding to "Nu-uh, stupid!"

Again, we have an disconnect.

You mean "a" disconnect? This is why I have trouble taking people seriously when they tell me I'm wrong about a simple aspect of my chosen profession and they know better despite about 15 minutes of exposure to it. I expect a little more thought to go into responses.

As you have already conceded the factual premise underlying my point,

I did no such thing unless your premise was that there is not proof, but strong evidence. Since that's not your premise, you're making stuff up again.

what exactly would you have me do with the evidence?

Engage it instead of bickering about the manner in which those dirty little apologists go about presenting it. Your first attempt to do that was full of fallacy and misinformation. Rather than fix that you've just changed directions to this stupid little "appeal to maklelan," which is also filled with fallacy and misinformation. Above you made a point of congratulating yourself because you think I ceded a point (which you incorrectly called your "premise) when in fact all I did was point out that my answer was no from the beginning, and it was your premise that was in error. Despite this concern for tiny little concessions, you have been unable to engage the fact that the vast majority of the information that you've burped up onto this board have been shown mistaken. You're too concerned with feeling like a winner to deal with the facts, and that's a very juvenile position to have, no matter how dumb you think apologists are.

Yes, I would. As I am a lawyer, and not a linguistic scholar, I would look forward to an "educated" explanation as to how secular scholars came up with an interpretation of the tablet, which included English vowels.

That's the name of the place and the tribe right now. The transliteration incorporates the modern vocalization of the name, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the ancient vocalization, which was uninhabited for centuries before "Nihm" was developed during the Common Era. See here.

I wish you would recognize that not being a linguistic scholar does rather handicap you in the evaluation of the legitimacy of this piece of linguistic evidence, rather than just assume you know more than people who do this for a living just because we're stupid "apologists" (everyone who posts on this board, no matter their perspective, is participating in apologetics) with **** for brains and not a single objective bone in their body, and that your uninformed opinion will be more accurate simply in virtue of not being burdened with Mormon naivety and wishful thinking.

Will you be providing the "educated" explanation?

Yes, but you haven't cared so far, despite being wrong about pretty much everything. Evidently your methodologies are so pure they overcome the lack of training of experience that might otherwise get in the way.

[Gervin]

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=1...um=2&id=255

Marib is a stones throw from NHM.

How far can you throw a stone? It's not clear from the article you link. Aston says "it is unlikely that Lehi and his family passed close to Marib." So why is the Nahom "dot" where it is? What are the ruins "there" that Jaybear refers to?

The fact that a NHM-ite donated an altar for a temple in Marib, in 600bc, proves that the tribe was living near and around Marib at that time, just as it does today.

I sincerely don't see the proof. How is an altar donation conclusively tied to residency? If the Marib temple served an extensive region, couldn't the tribe have come from 300 miles to the south?

[Jaybear]

Since the altar dates to before that time period and the vocalization is arbitrary, yes. You keep trying to reduce it down to where it sounds silly to you, but you just don't know the facts well enough.

I told you I agree. Yet, you still feel the need to call me ignorant.

You absolutely did. You tried to twist the claim of a "bullseye" into a claim of proof.

No I didn't. I said the use of the term "bullseye" is an overstatement, given the specific nature of the NMN claim.

I am sorry you don't see the difference.

There is nothing inappropriate about the title. The name is as close as it can be and the location and function are as well.

The "as it can be" being the operative phrase There might have been a place called Nahom. There might not have been a place called Nahom.

In the academic world that merits an explanation. Either it was a coincidence, Smith had information of which we're unaware, or the places happen to be the same.

Nonsense. The academic world would never touch the question "How could SMith had known" about the existence of Nahom, when you have not yet established the existence of Nahom to the academic world.

Its a rhetorcial question, posed by apologist, which presumes that Smith got it right.

By contrast, having established that "Alma" was a mans name, then it becomes appropriate to ask how could smith have know.

The OP wants the critics to provide an explanation for #2, since just asserting a coincidence is hardly verifiable, and this is a pretty hefty coincidence.

"Hefty" is a subjective qualifier. Obviously, we are not going to agree on the weight of the evidence.

Frankly, in looking at the big picture, the NHM claim is evidence of the dogged efforts apologists are willing to take to find somenthing, anything to support their belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The fact that, despite these efforts, nhm may be the best archeological evidence to support the belief that family migrated from the old world to the Americas circa 600 BC and established a christian civilization that lasted 1,000 years is really quite surprising.

Far from extraordinarily coincidental, I would have expected more.

Engage it instead of bickering about the manner in which those dirty little apologists go about presenting it. Your first attempt to do that was full of fallacy and misinformation. Rather than fix that you've just changed directions to this stupid little "appeal to maklelan," which is also filled with fallacy and misinformation. Above you made a point of congratulating yourself because you think I ceded a point (which you incorrectly called your "premise) when in fact all I did was point out that my answer was no from the beginning, and it was your premise that was in error. Despite this concern for tiny little concessions, you have been unable to engage the fact that the vast majority of the information that you've burped up onto this board have been shown mistaken. You're too concerned with feeling like a winner to deal with the facts, and that's a very juvenile position to have, no matter how dumb you think apologists are.

Nice diatribe. You actually think that you know better than I, the premise underlying my point. Nah.

That's the name of the place and the tribe right now. The transliteration incorporates the modern vocalization of the name, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the ancient vocalization, which was uninhabited for centuries before "Nihm" was developed during the Common Era. See here.

The modern vocalization of the name has "nothing whatsoever to do with the ancient vocalization."

CFR.

I wish you would recognize that not being a linguistic scholar does rather handicap you in the evaluation of the legitimacy of this piece of linguistic evidence, rather than just assume you know more than people who do this for a living just because we're stupid "apologists" (everyone who posts on this board, no matter their perspective, is participating in apologetics) with **** for brains and not a single objective bone in their body, and that your uninformed opinion will be more accurate simply in virtue of not being burdened with Mormon naivety and wishful thinking.

When did I say I know more than linguistic scholars? When did I accuse apologists of being stupid or having **** for brains? You need to stop reading insults, and rhetoric into my posts.

Yes, but you haven't cared so far, despite being wrong about pretty much everything. Evidently your methodologies are so pure they overcome the lack of training of experience that might otherwise get in the way.

Please identify a single factual statement that I made on this thread that is demonstrably wrong. Please be sure to quote me.

[maklelan]

I told you I agree. Yet, you still feel the need to call me ignorant.

Actually I was quite clear that the evidence only supported the presence of a place called NHM. I specifically rejected the idea of reconstructing any vocalization. You, however, felt it was necessary to try to paint a picture of a more desperate conclusion by highlighting what you believe to be a large distance between what you assert is an accurate vocalization of an exclusively tribal designation, and the Book of Mormon vocalization of a toponym. You were being patronizing and now you're equivocating so you can assert indignation at my putative misreading. You evidently think I'm a four year old and don't recognize that, and you'll respond with a "What did I do?!?" attitude because you evidently think everyone else here is four years old and also can't see through your juvenile behavior. You've being dishonest and disrespectful through this entire discussion. I'm not participating in it any longer, and you're on ignore.

[Olavarria]

How far can you throw a stone? It's not clear from the article you link. Aston says "it is unlikely that Lehi and his family passed close to Marib." So why is the Nahom "dot" where it is? What are the ruins "there" that Jaybear refers to?

No one ever actually reads the links. Look on the map of the PDF version; a picture is worth a thousand words.

"At the same time that the Bar'an excavation was completed, a French team conducted the first archaeological examination of a huge area of ancient burial tombs at 'Alam, Ruwayk, and Jidran, just 25 miles north of Marib. While there are isolated burial tombs scattered throughout the Nahom region, this vast cemetery covering many square miles and numbering many thousands of tombs is the largest burial area known anywhere in Arabia." Thats about the same distance from Salt Lake to Bluffdale and I'm assuming can be reached in less than a day.

The altars are at Marib because they were donated for use at the temple in Marib. The fact that a NHMite would use time and effort would donate aan altar to that place shows that the tribe was living in and around that area at the time. Or, maybe they were in China and Biathar just decided to make the trip.

I sincerely don't see the proof. How is an altar donation conclusively tied to residency? If the Marib temple served an extensive region, couldn't the tribe have come from 300 miles to the south?

However you slice it NHM-ites, during Lehi's time, were living near Marib,as they do today. You couldnt say that with certainty in the 1970s.

[volgadon]

Vocalisations were not set in stone (pardon the pun).

There was considerable variation even within the same language, let alone when it comes to another.

Beitar, Bithir, Bittir, Bethir, Bettir, Beith-Tar, Beith-Ter, Battir, Beter, Batar, ad nauseum.

[thesometimesaint]

We have them in English too.

I will read the article. I read the article.